Feingold for VP in '08
But what's really great about the post is that it quotes at length from a speech that Senator Russ Feingold gave at the time of the vote on the Iraq War resolution. It shows that it was, in fact, possible for some people to see clearly at the time much of what has come to pass.
Read a longer except of Feingold's speech here.Therefore, Mr. President, without a better case for al Qaeda's connection to Saddam Hussein, this proposed invasion must stand on its own merits, not on some notion that those who question this invasion don't thoroughly condemn and want to see the destruction of the perpetrators of 9-11 and similar terrorist attacks on the United States.An invasion of Iraq must stand on its own, not just because it is different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9-11 but because it may not be consistent with, and may even be harmful to, the top national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9-11.
...
Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America.
...
I do believe that the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, all of the hearings, and all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the Administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after or, as others have suggested, the decade after. And I think, Mr. President, that makes no sense at all.
posted by Ish at 2:01 PM
5 Comments:
well i'm a republican who now thinks highly of russ.
while i respect feingold tremendously and think he'd be a fine vp candidate, and while i have opposed invading iraq from the get-go, i think the "voted against iraq" litmus test is unproductive.
i say this for two reasons - first, we're there and we have to figure out the best way to deal with the challenges it presents us today. while holding those who got us there, inadvisably and incompentently, accountable is valid and is happening as a natural course of political events, making it the focus of current debate and direction gets us nowhere. and creating a standard of 'we're not taking anyone seriously unless they voted against it' both dwells on the decision to go in and brushes the political intricacies of that vote under the rug. the vote wasn't to go to war, it was to authorize the president to use force if required, which is admittedly a slippery little spin, but there is an element of truth to it. who knew at the time that the president would not make any real effort to continue diplomatic resolution, which ostensibly the vote helped create leverage for in a credible threat respect, and would not only go in gung-ho but also botch it so badly. essentially, hindsight is 20/20 with respect to that vote, which was a massive political hot-potato at the time. again, i would have preferred more feingold's and fewer kerry's, but i think it's time to move past that.
secondly, dwelling on iraq, even the blame and exit strategy aspect of it, to the exclusion of other foriegn policy issues propogates the same fatal flaw that the administration's policy has - there's no assessment of the big picture. as much as iraq is the burning pot on the stove and the most critical issue because of the ongoing loss of life and resources, it is only one portion of our foriegn policy. and presenting a comprehensive new vision for what we should do across the region and globe should be the focus, not on simply addressing the politically pressing iraq issue to the exclusion of discussing the rest of the policy landscape.
Cuznate, I see where you're coming from, and I have a couple of observations.
One, while hindsight is 20/20, part of what Feingold's speech illustrates is that the facts were there to be seen.
I suspect that many who voted in favor of the resolution saw at least some of what Feingold saw, but they made a purely political calculation: if I vote against this, I will be beat over the head with it by political opponents.
I think some of those trying to defend their votes by arguing that "we didn't know" what the President planned to do, that "we only wanted to make the threat of military action credible," are being a little disingenuous. I think the Administration's intentions were fairly clear.
Second, I agree that the simple litmus test is unproductive - a more instructive question might be, if they voted for the AUMF, when did they see the error of their ways, and what did they do then?
ish - fair enough and good points. i agree that there's likely more than a little dishonesty happening with the "we didn't know" argument, but my point was only that there's at least an element of truth there.
your final point nails it. my vain hope is that we not only have politicians who stand up on principle ala feingold, but also honestly own up to mistakes. i'm not holding my breath, though.
I'm not ready for a Presidency that includes Russ Feingold -- I'd go immediately into mendacity withdrawals.
Post a Comment
<< Home